LLB202 Study Guide - Final Guide: Kiri Te Kanawa, Estoppel, Mobil
EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL
Equitable Estoppel prevents a party from going back on a promise when the other party relied
upon it to their detriment.
There need not be a pre-existing contractual relationship between the parties before estoppel
can arise (Waltons Stores v Maher).
The elements of estoppel should be positively proved and rarely inferred (Chellaram v China
Ocean Shipping).
To establish equitable estoppel plaintiff must prove; Brennan J Waltons Stores (Interstate)
Ltd v Maher: 2,4,6 reflect unconscionable conduct
1. plaintiff assumed that a particular legal relationship then existed between the
plaintiff and the defendant or expected that a particular legal relationship
would exist between them
2. defendant has induced the plaintiff to adopt that assumption or expectation
3. plaintiff acts or abstains from acting in reliance on the assumption or
expectation
4. defendant knew or intended him to do so
5. plaintiff’s action or inaction will occasion detriment if the assumption or
expectation is not fulfilled
6. defendant has failed to act to avoid that detriment whether by fulfilling the
assumption or expectation or otherwise
4.1 Assumption or Expectation
A clear and unambiguous assumption or expectation by one party that a particular legal
relationship existed between them from which the other party was not free to withdraw.
The relevant assumption or expectation is that a contract would be enacted or a promise
would be fulfilled (Waltons Stores v Maher): assumption/expectation was that a contract will
come into existence or a promise will be fulfilled in the future
4.1.1 Clear and unambiguous
The assumption relied upon by the plaintiff must have been clear and unambiguous (Legione
v Hateley).
The law is not settled as to whether it is not enough to show that the plaintiff assumed or
expected a legal relationship to exist but that they also must have assumed that the defendant
was not free to withdraw from this relationship (Leading Edge Events Australia v Kiri Te
Kanawa).
Unlike in contract law, the judge will not decide between to meanings but will reject Estoppel
based on uncertainty (Woodhouse AC Israel Cocoa v Nigerian Produce Marketing). A
promise or representation will generally be sufficiently certain to support an estoppel if it was
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
